Where in my post did I ask about "weather" something was "rational or not?"
Sorry, friend. The whole discussion is in play even though you think it's cool to try to grab bits and pieces rather than worry about the concepts as a whole. You responded to my original comment where I was talking about rational choices. You then asked me if I thought that the way the system works (the way you see it) was natural and understandable. I responded that it was RATIONAL for people to maximize their gains within that system. I went on to say that I didn't think that it was ideal. I went further on to say that it was not the system, but the people who intentionally twist it (yes, rationally).
I assumed you were opposed to helping those less well off, and further assumed you were discussing spending in general, as a result of the following statement: "Contrast that with a portion of the country that believes that they're entitled to life, liberty, and a guarantee of happiness. That group is the group that wants to, as you so eloquently put it, avoid accountability and stick someone else with the bill. They're the ones voting politicians in who will do nothing but guarantee more and more "free" (paid for with someone else's money). They're the ones who are good at changing laws on their own behalf." I took that to mean you have an issue with "entitlements." Often this is a euphemism for redistributive government spending.
I'm saying it as plain as I can. You read correctly that I think handouts are garbage when they come from the government and they are given in such a way that (purposely or not) train a population to be dependent rather than independent. A safety net is important, but when people use it as a hammock there's a problem with the design / implementation.
I shouldn't have to say "I'm responding to bla bla bla... " because it was the next message. You're response was misrepresentation galore and splitting them all up and calling them all out was simply too much to deal at the time. I clearly used your own words (eloquent section) when I responded so you should have known what I was talking about. You wanted to know if I'd go to great lengths to heave the responsibility onto others? I replied. And I stated that there is a whole constituency besides the uber rich that play the same game you felt the need to call the wealthy people who care to keep their dollars from the government (legally) and later spend them as they see fit. You brought up the behavior because you think it's bad behavior. I simply pointed out that it's carried out by more than just those you aimed to vilify. I didn't say it would be "right" for anyone.
Further, I made no mention of your own charitable giving. Instead I was responding to your direct question: "Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?" I was responding in the affirmative. I do indeed pay more than I need because I feel it is right. From your own words I assume you do not. Where did I misinterpreted your meaning?
So now you're interested in what was said before rather than our immediate discussion? Good. I'm glad you're starting to see that the whole thread is important, not just whether I can spell "weather" correctly or not. If you want to pay extra in taxes then so be it. If you think the government is better able to tell how to spend your money than you are then you go right ahead. As for me, I pay what I'm legally required to pay (and probably more because I don't search for every possible loophole as I don't make enough to worry with it), and then I decide how to allocate my charitable givings. I can give $100 to a local food bank and they can spend it directly on food - or I can pay an extra $100 in taxes and watch maybe a 10 dollars of that actually make it to the food bank (replace food bank with
Read your own questions and your own comments with the post I responded to. We're talking about weather something was rational or not. I responded. I think I was pretty clear that the mindset of the people in system is what is broken and that the actors are simply doing what they can. Whether in spending or in evasion. That's the problem... not richie rich. I think I was also pretty clear that it's not ideal behavior (even though it is rational). You have a reading fail.
Also, you are putting words in my mouth "[anti] spending one nickel to help those down on luck" and you did so several times. I didn't say the things, but somehow you know that "I obviously felt" them. Like I said your comprehension is just poor - either that or you're reading it with too much of a bias. I don't know, but you're obviously not capable of discussing it sanely.
It's funny (and a sign of something I'm sure) that you think that because I'm not out bragging about how much I give to charity you feel like it's within your right to assume I'm giving nothing. Some people have an upbringing and confidence level in themselves to not worry about "showing out" in their charitable deeds. Those who need to see them do - everyone else is just keeping score. For those that are actually interested in doing the right thing, they're not playing a game - and they don't care about the score even if you want to keep one.
When your risks don't pay off, would you take extraordinary measures to ensure that you were legally and affordably able to stick someone else with the bill and avoid all accountability? That is, you ensure that laws are changed on your behalf.
When my risks don't pay off - hell when my good choices don't pan out as well as I'd like - I generally eat it. When I was a kid I used to complain about how so-and-so got a cool new toy and I didn't OR how so-and-so got an A for their shitty homework and I didn't. Then at some point in high school I grew up and realized that life's not fair and sometimes you're playing against the odds and you just have to do even better.
Contrast that with a portion of the country that believes that they're entitled to life, liberty, and a guarantee of happiness. That group is the group that wants to, as you so eloquently put it, avoid accountability and stick someone else with the bill. They're the ones voting politicians in who will do nothing but guarantee more and more "free" (paid for with someone else's money). They're the ones who are good at changing laws on their own behalf.
Is that just natural, totally understandable behavior?
Yes, it could certainly be viewed as rational behavior. It's not ideal in MY view, but it may have been the most rational thing. Rational isn't good or bad. It just is. If you're a con man who makes a living swindling old ladies out of their money and stealing lollipops from little kids then you suck as a citizen. However, I would not call you irrational if you attempted to have the law changed such that it was okay to do so or used some loophole to make the charges not stick legally. You're still a jerk, you're just also rational.
Should our system be actively encouraging that sort of behavior?
I assume you mean the US constitution and governing systems. That system should certainly not be encouraging it AND IT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE it at this time. The people behind the system ALLOW it. The system doesn't ENCOURAGE it any more than me not locking my doors ENCOURAGES someone to rob me.
Companies can't "ensure" that laws are changed on their behalf. They can lobby for it, but they can't ensure it. They also can't ensure that even if their lobbying pays off that the laws will stay that way. Theoretically, the politicians that acted poorly and voted for bad laws can be voted right back out again in favor of someone who will do the will of the people. That's the glory of the US governing systems. It is also the weakness. Our current "way" is what it is because WE make it that way. We make it that way even if many of us are spending all day being too "woe to me" to realize we have a choice and are unwilling to think and act on possible solutions.
The system's not broken - the people behind it are simply mentally weakened and emotionally worn - and the fact that people are more concerned about the "gap between the rich and poor" than they are about the "gap between 3rd world poverty and US poverty ways of life" is a sure sign of it.
Banks (the people that run them) are rational like anyone else. They want to better their own situation in whatever ways they can LEGALLY. Mix that with that fact that some customers fell into greedy / stupid behaviors their grandmother would have never approved of and then when the crap hit the fan some other group of jackass law makers decided that it's cool to push the onus off on the taxpayer. All that together you boil down to "banks push losses to taxpayer when risks don't pay off". Whatever. The banks don't make the law as much as many people like to pretend they do.
You'd be 100% right about what you said if I had only said 50% of what I said. I said legal AND affordable. What you named was affordable, but not legal, so it doesn't count. Look, all I was saying was that people who have money want to keep it and it makes since they'd do all the things they can (within the law) to do so. I said it in direct response the AC who said "Self entitled wealthy bastards go to great lengths to avoid paying taxes".
Mods, you can mod me down again because you don't like what I'm saying, but you're misusing the system and, as is likely to happen when systems are misused, you'll ruin it for everyone except your kind. More power to you I guess.
I use TurboTax each year planning to take every deduction it can find for me to take. I'm certainly not a wealthy bastard, but i don't want to pay any more than I have to. If an accountant would "pay for itself" (they'd save me as much as they would charge) then I'd hire one to do my taxes. I would have employed someone for a day and gotten PAID to do so by the saving on my taxes. Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?
People who work generally prefer to keep their earned money. People who took risks generally prefer to be rewarded when those risks pay off. They'd rather get to spend it on (or give it to) things of their choosing rather than have as much as possible taken from them to be handed out to someone else (government or otherwise).
Personally, I like #2 (aptly numbered, by the way). It has nothing to do with the discussion other than it being a "Oh yeah? Well let me tell you this about YOUR guy!" type comment. I'm sure there's a fancy debate name for that sort of fallacy, but 'irrelevant' will do fine. But even though it's irrelevant it definitely tells me a bit about how much thought you put into it.
Wealthy people whose income comes from tax free bonds pay no federal income taxes. However they pay other local taxes on property etc.
If you are someone whose income comes from tax free bonds it means what? It means you loaned your money to the f-cking government who NEEDED IT (or so they were convinced) for some reason or another. Once you handed it to the government you did NOT have your money and could not invest it elsewhere where you would have made a higher return (which you would have paid taxes on, but would have probably still come out better). You couldn't BUY FOOD with that money even if you wanted. You couldn't pay rent with it if you fell on hard times. You couldn't even reinvest it. You have incurred an opportunity cost AND taken on risk. You do realize that's why those bonds are tax free right? Because they wouldn't be a good deal if they were paid the less than "market" rates that they pay AND you had to pay taxes on them. The government wants to entice you to put your money with them and making them tax free is one of the ways they can sweeten' the deal... but you seem to be missing that even with that benefit it still doesn't necessarily mean it was a good deal.
Use of the VPNs is not limited to people in a particular repressed country. A given repressed citizen in country C might be part of the intended audience should they want to use it, but it's not ONLY for them nor is it only for citizens of C. That is, it is not TARGETED. Acts of War are targeted. You don't commit an act of war at no one in particular. Invading a country (even to help the populace get out from under an "evil" dictator) may still be an act of war (probably is) - but running a VPN available to whomever is not.
If you're overly concerned about someone declaring something an "act of war" just because they don't like it then life's just going to be tough. There's always going to be some off his/her rocker leader that will claim that if you do X it is an act of war. And the whole rest of the world will be like, "yeah, yeah. Act of war... bla bla... only in your delusional mind". In that case it doesn't matter if crazy leader thinks of it as an "act of war" or not. It's just not even if they try to apply that label. It's at MOST a fart in their general direction, something disrespectful, but calling it an "act of war" doesn't make it one any more so than calling a comment you simply disagree with a "troll".
If someone rear-ends you, then that's their fault. 100% of the time.
If someone rearends you while driving it may legally be their fault, but that doesn't change the fact that you get to live with whatever injuries you or your family get out of the deal. If you can't stop safely then it is actually in EVERYONE's best interest that you don't stop... unless of course keeping going is even more dangerous for others. Then you have to make a choice. The only way you can know that and to make good choices is to have a circle of awareness that includes what is going on behind you, to your sides, and in front of you. A sphere of awareness is even better, but most of the time, on the road, a circle will suffice.
I rearended someone myself--going 50mph--because I was looking in my rearview mirror too long while doing a lane change, and they were stopped dead on the highway.
You're obviously speaking from a personal experience here, and I hope everyone was okay, but it sounds like you learned the wrong lesson. The lesson you learned should NOT be that you don't need to know what's going on all around you and that you don't need to use your mirrors other than when changing lanes - rather it should be that you shouldn't focus on any ONE area sufficiently long that you fail to notice important things in another area. Who is "legally" at fault only helps you in the courtroom - not in the morgue and not in the operating room... those are where it counts. And yes, you might end up having to defend yourself from a fine (line/red lights) in order to keep yourself out of the morgue.
So, I did some more reading on timezones / DST this weekend. You might want to take a look at http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/DST.html as it seems to state outright that DST is a "bad thing" for farmers. The primary issues that DST addresses actually seem to be related to safety and energy consumption. I'm still interested in agricultural examples if you got 'em, but I'm definitely a bit more skeptical now.
Thanks for the explanation. I'd like to hear more examples if you have them. I generally explain to my kids that the farmers needed more daylight to work, but even at their young ages they follow up with "how does changing the clock make more hours where the sun is shining... it's just different hours". In your response you've provided a "nature" reason for why the hours are different (the cows just come home "later") and a "human" reason (people still want to spend times with their family).
It's not your job to answer my question so if you don't have time that's cool, but since you're obviously knowledgeable about it (and somewhat passionate) I'd be very interested to hear other "nature of farming" issues that cause the "human aspect" to come into play. It's just interesting mostly.
I don't think you're wrong. But I think maybe you misunderstood my position. My intention wasn't to bitch about the choice of the poster to be anonymous. I only get a certain number of modpoints and I choose to mod (both good and bad) non ACs because so many people filter AC out by default.
Not that you have any control over it, but what would neat (perhaps not "useful", but "neat") is if slashdot would let readers obfuscate author names and toggle them visible as desired. Every AC post would get a new obfuscation to keep you from tying them to one another, but every other post would start out (if the reader desired) with obfuscated "by" names. Then you wouldn't know if you were modding an AC or not - or modding one of your mortal virtual enemies. Might remove a little bit of the AC bias. But, otoh, AC bias is there for a reason... and it's because many of them are truly cowards / trolls.
In any case, your point is taken. I don't know if it will affect my behavior, but I'll definitely take it into consideration as this author really did have a good point. And for the record, that's why I responded... to draw attention - to make it a discussion - rather than one ACs random "rant".
I wasn't aware that I had a right (and no, I'm not saying I'm atheist) to stick a sign / display of my choosing on the courthouse lawn. I understand that the courthouse might allow me to do so out of tradition, but it's not a RIGHT. Get a grip. I get nauseated every time i see the commercial with the guy who says he has a RIGHT to unlimited data because he has an iPhone or garbage like that. No, you don't have a right to unlimited data and you don't have a right to putting whatever propaganda you choose on the courthouse lawn.
All of that being said I think it's total horseshit that some atheists CHOOSE to fight about this type of thing. The courthouse doesn't BELONG to the atheists and it doesn't BELONG to the other group (choose your religious group). So far as I can tell it's not hurting anyone for the decorations to be out and many people get joy out of it. I doubt the atheist gets anything negative out of it other than what they choose to get... something about needing to feel like everyone's against you in order to give your life purpose / meaning.
I see this behavior as like my 3 year old girl getting pissed off at another 3 year old who is just trying to have a good time while the parents enjoy some coffee. The little girl starts getting pissed because, well, holy shit, that other little 3 year old has the balls to climb on HER slide right in front of her! You know, the one she wasn't using and hasn't used in months, and doesn't even want to use right now.
As a parent I tell my child in no uncertain terms to chill out and that she can play nicely together or go hang out in her room while she gets over it. Why this can't be done for grown ups is beyond me.
If management is under utilizing you as a resource then it's important for them to know that especially in a company that is trying to turn things and around and get better at what they do without spending more money to make it happen. Many employees won't want to just pass that information along and be given more work. Under utilization of existing resources is something that can be reasonably extracted using that particular metric (time spent logged in). I also understand (and so does Mayer I'm sure) that it could also mean a lot of other things, but the easiest way to be sure about it is to remove the other variables. Especially when the other complaints (perhaps jealous outbursts, but perhaps not) existed.
Exactly! The OS of a smart thermostat (5-10 years ago) might be good enough to control a "lowcost space craft". Can this OS context switch? Yes. Can it handle IO to different channels? Yes. Will it stay up and running assuming no one does something stupid and crashes it? Yes! Woo hoo we have a winner for an OS.
The hardware is the key. If the hardware can survive space and operate as expected then you've got something. Even if it doesn't operate as expected, but it does operate consistently you MIGHT be able to work with that. If the hardware works and the OS quits just because it's in space then the OS probably isn't fit for operation anywhere.
I guess you're trying to imply that games could not meet the same success? Tell that to minecraft and angry birds to name a couple. Here, and this is just a lame list I found at wikipedia of cloned games and success stories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone#Notable_cloned_games
I realize maybe the GPs use of "clones" was perhaps being used in the derogatory way meaning "uninspired". But the point here isn't that it be new or creative. We know what people want... we also know they don't want. We know that they APPEAR to hate all the strings attached. So if you're so confident then clone the damn game already, do it better, make it fun, and get out of the customers way so it can succeed. With any level of success you won't get sued out of existence, you'll just end up paying a nominal royalty AND show that there's money to be made specifically by not screwing over the customer. That's all I was / am saying.
Right.... because "clones" can't gain traction when they're done better, or less expensively, or more conveniently. Facebook is a MySpace clone . Microsoft Word is essentially a WordPerfect Clone. The list goes on.
There is! You could create a better game / process and take away some market share. That tends to get a company's attention pretty quick. And no, I'm not saying this flippantly.
You're right, but you didn't really say anything;. The whole process is also limited by how fast I can type correctly (a misspelled variable name is a way bigger cost during a compile than anything else) and my application performance (does it run fast enough) is limited by how well I think out and code my algorithms. There's always a potentially slower spot in the process. That doesn't mean we should quit advancing in one particular area (ie. saying CPUs are plenty fast enough already because GPUs can be use - when they demonstrably CAN NOT) and then try to says it's all cool to make a statement such as that just because some other component COULD end up being the bottleneck in some system. A faster CPU is better... unless you're playing an old copy of "xcom ufo defense" on the hardware... then you're screwed.
To answer your question: Yes. Those types of tools would qualify as "real world business applications".
You found a class of exceptions to the rule I was getting at... that's fine. Bitcoins are faster calculated on a video card... so does that mean that CPUs might as well stop advancing.
Higher up the thread they seemed to think computers are plenty fast for everyone because today's games can run on them if only the video card could handle it. But for MANY (dare I say MOST) software developers using the video card to speed things up isn't an option. And even if it was they'd still want a faster compile. Always.
I hear what you're saying, but WilliamGeorge is right. You can't just declare that something is "fast enough" for someone else. They are probably a little more qualified to make that decision than you are.
Maybe I don't need a faster computer to play "Sim City 5" or whatever "games" you talking about. But there's more to life and computing than the latest FPS.
Let me know when I can full system compiles on my video card or run real world business applications on my video card. Until then (and even then), know that I will spend up to an hour each day simply waiting on compiles to complete and unit tests to run. A faster machine is something I look forward to and one would certainly cut down on the amount of time I spend waiting on my computer to be ready for me to get on with my job.
Then again, it would also likely cut down on my slashdotting as I often alt-tab over here while waiting on those other tasks to complete.
Give me a break. How your comment is "informative" other than it offering a link is beyond me.
All this speech did was potentially (if not responded to in the short term with vigor) opened the door for the President of the United States to start telling people to tone down their own lives for the good of the collective. Carter already had terrible approval ratings and SOMEHOW this speech actually helped him in the slightest, but, only for a short time. I'm thankful that some "senile movie actor" was around to remind people of what they already knew.
You're wasting your breath. It's just like patents. The title and tiny summary at the beginning isn't the patent... the claims are the patent. But guess what, a large percent of the people I hear complaining about patents didn't bother reading what is actually claimed. Why would those same people who were complaining about patents read the contents of a law to see what it actually says when they can just stick with being lazy and bitching about the summary of the law instead?
However, I am aware that in the old days (before our time) they used to use "trading beads" to handle "currency exchange". Each currency and denomination was worth a certain number of beads depending on the actual value of the currency in question. So, when someone came to you with a green bead it was worth exactly however much a green bead was worth in the culture you planned to trade it on. The good thing about this is that as a merchant you didn't have to know the exchange rates for everywhere you sold product. Instead you just had to know that you product was worth X number of green beads in YOUR currency - maybe this equates to 5 dollars for 1 green bead. So, when you sold a product you demanded one green bead for it no matter where it was sold. If you were in a culture who had a currency of chickens then it didn't matter to you. You still demanded a green bead and they could figure out for themselves how many chickens makes a green bead. All of that was handled based on the local market - not through some central manipulation. As an added benefit, if the beads were sufficiently difficult to manufacture then you could know that your transaction was secure (and that you weren't getting scammed by the buyer). Seems to me that bitcoin actually does all of these things and might be useful if for no other reason than those.
In bitcoins you actually have the added benefit that you know there is a limit. You don't have to worry about the bead manufacturer putting out an infinite number of beads driving down the value of each.
Now, I guess the questions I would have would be "why did they (people) quit using these types of schemes / beads?" and "what does bitcoin do that is sufficiently different so that those items don't come into play again".
Slashdot Mirror
Where in my post did I ask about "weather" something was "rational or not?"
Sorry, friend. The whole discussion is in play even though you think it's cool to try to grab bits and pieces rather than worry about the concepts as a whole. You responded to my original comment where I was talking about rational choices. You then asked me if I thought that the way the system works (the way you see it) was natural and understandable. I responded that it was RATIONAL for people to maximize their gains within that system. I went on to say that I didn't think that it was ideal. I went further on to say that it was not the system, but the people who intentionally twist it (yes, rationally).
I assumed you were opposed to helping those less well off, and further assumed you were discussing spending in general, as a result of the following statement: "Contrast that with a portion of the country that believes that they're entitled to life, liberty, and a guarantee of happiness. That group is the group that wants to, as you so eloquently put it, avoid accountability and stick someone else with the bill. They're the ones voting politicians in who will do nothing but guarantee more and more "free" (paid for with someone else's money). They're the ones who are good at changing laws on their own behalf." I took that to mean you have an issue with "entitlements." Often this is a euphemism for redistributive government spending.
I'm saying it as plain as I can. You read correctly that I think handouts are garbage when they come from the government and they are given in such a way that (purposely or not) train a population to be dependent rather than independent. A safety net is important, but when people use it as a hammock there's a problem with the design / implementation.
I shouldn't have to say "I'm responding to bla bla bla... " because it was the next message. You're response was misrepresentation galore and splitting them all up and calling them all out was simply too much to deal at the time. I clearly used your own words (eloquent section) when I responded so you should have known what I was talking about. You wanted to know if I'd go to great lengths to heave the responsibility onto others? I replied. And I stated that there is a whole constituency besides the uber rich that play the same game you felt the need to call the wealthy people who care to keep their dollars from the government (legally) and later spend them as they see fit. You brought up the behavior because you think it's bad behavior. I simply pointed out that it's carried out by more than just those you aimed to vilify. I didn't say it would be "right" for anyone.
Further, I made no mention of your own charitable giving. Instead I was responding to your direct question: "Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?" I was responding in the affirmative. I do indeed pay more than I need because I feel it is right. From your own words I assume you do not. Where did I misinterpreted your meaning?
So now you're interested in what was said before rather than our immediate discussion? Good. I'm glad you're starting to see that the whole thread is important, not just whether I can spell "weather" correctly or not. If you want to pay extra in taxes then so be it. If you think the government is better able to tell how to spend your money than you are then you go right ahead. As for me, I pay what I'm legally required to pay (and probably more because I don't search for every possible loophole as I don't make enough to worry with it), and then I decide how to allocate my charitable givings. I can give $100 to a local food bank and they can spend it directly on food - or I can pay an extra $100 in taxes and watch maybe a 10 dollars of that actually make it to the food bank (replace food bank with
We're talking about tax evasion.
Read your own questions and your own comments with the post I responded to. We're talking about weather something was rational or not. I responded. I think I was pretty clear that the mindset of the people in system is what is broken and that the actors are simply doing what they can. Whether in spending or in evasion. That's the problem... not richie rich. I think I was also pretty clear that it's not ideal behavior (even though it is rational). You have a reading fail.
Also, you are putting words in my mouth "[anti] spending one nickel to help those down on luck" and you did so several times. I didn't say the things, but somehow you know that "I obviously felt" them. Like I said your comprehension is just poor - either that or you're reading it with too much of a bias. I don't know, but you're obviously not capable of discussing it sanely.
It's funny (and a sign of something I'm sure) that you think that because I'm not out bragging about how much I give to charity you feel like it's within your right to assume I'm giving nothing. Some people have an upbringing and confidence level in themselves to not worry about "showing out" in their charitable deeds. Those who need to see them do - everyone else is just keeping score. For those that are actually interested in doing the right thing, they're not playing a game - and they don't care about the score even if you want to keep one.
When your risks don't pay off, would you take extraordinary measures to ensure that you were legally and affordably able to stick someone else with the bill and avoid all accountability? That is, you ensure that laws are changed on your behalf.
When my risks don't pay off - hell when my good choices don't pan out as well as I'd like - I generally eat it. When I was a kid I used to complain about how so-and-so got a cool new toy and I didn't OR how so-and-so got an A for their shitty homework and I didn't. Then at some point in high school I grew up and realized that life's not fair and sometimes you're playing against the odds and you just have to do even better.
Contrast that with a portion of the country that believes that they're entitled to life, liberty, and a guarantee of happiness. That group is the group that wants to, as you so eloquently put it, avoid accountability and stick someone else with the bill. They're the ones voting politicians in who will do nothing but guarantee more and more "free" (paid for with someone else's money). They're the ones who are good at changing laws on their own behalf.
Is that just natural, totally understandable behavior?
Yes, it could certainly be viewed as rational behavior. It's not ideal in MY view, but it may have been the most rational thing. Rational isn't good or bad. It just is. If you're a con man who makes a living swindling old ladies out of their money and stealing lollipops from little kids then you suck as a citizen. However, I would not call you irrational if you attempted to have the law changed such that it was okay to do so or used some loophole to make the charges not stick legally. You're still a jerk, you're just also rational.
Should our system be actively encouraging that sort of behavior?
I assume you mean the US constitution and governing systems. That system should certainly not be encouraging it AND IT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE it at this time. The people behind the system ALLOW it. The system doesn't ENCOURAGE it any more than me not locking my doors ENCOURAGES someone to rob me.
Companies can't "ensure" that laws are changed on their behalf. They can lobby for it, but they can't ensure it. They also can't ensure that even if their lobbying pays off that the laws will stay that way. Theoretically, the politicians that acted poorly and voted for bad laws can be voted right back out again in favor of someone who will do the will of the people. That's the glory of the US governing systems. It is also the weakness. Our current "way" is what it is because WE make it that way. We make it that way even if many of us are spending all day being too "woe to me" to realize we have a choice and are unwilling to think and act on possible solutions.
The system's not broken - the people behind it are simply mentally weakened and emotionally worn - and the fact that people are more concerned about the "gap between the rich and poor" than they are about the "gap between 3rd world poverty and US poverty ways of life" is a sure sign of it.
Banks (the people that run them) are rational like anyone else. They want to better their own situation in whatever ways they can LEGALLY. Mix that with that fact that some customers fell into greedy / stupid behaviors their grandmother would have never approved of and then when the crap hit the fan some other group of jackass law makers decided that it's cool to push the onus off on the taxpayer. All that together you boil down to "banks push losses to taxpayer when risks don't pay off". Whatever. The banks don't make the law as much as many people like to pretend they do.
You'd be 100% right about what you said if I had only said 50% of what I said. I said legal AND affordable. What you named was affordable, but not legal, so it doesn't count. Look, all I was saying was that people who have money want to keep it and it makes since they'd do all the things they can (within the law) to do so. I said it in direct response the AC who said "Self entitled wealthy bastards go to great lengths to avoid paying taxes".
Mods, you can mod me down again because you don't like what I'm saying, but you're misusing the system and, as is likely to happen when systems are misused, you'll ruin it for everyone except your kind. More power to you I guess.
I use TurboTax each year planning to take every deduction it can find for me to take. I'm certainly not a wealthy bastard, but i don't want to pay any more than I have to. If an accountant would "pay for itself" (they'd save me as much as they would charge) then I'd hire one to do my taxes. I would have employed someone for a day and gotten PAID to do so by the saving on my taxes. Beyond that if there was some reasonably affordable and legal way for me to save more money in an untaxed account you better believe I'd try. Is there anyone who wouldn't (and who actually does pay taxes)?
People who work generally prefer to keep their earned money. People who took risks generally prefer to be rewarded when those risks pay off. They'd rather get to spend it on (or give it to) things of their choosing rather than have as much as possible taken from them to be handed out to someone else (government or otherwise).
What hard to understand?
Wealthy people whose income comes from tax free bonds pay no federal income taxes. However they pay other local taxes on property etc.
If you are someone whose income comes from tax free bonds it means what? It means you loaned your money to the f-cking government who NEEDED IT (or so they were convinced) for some reason or another. Once you handed it to the government you did NOT have your money and could not invest it elsewhere where you would have made a higher return (which you would have paid taxes on, but would have probably still come out better). You couldn't BUY FOOD with that money even if you wanted. You couldn't pay rent with it if you fell on hard times. You couldn't even reinvest it. You have incurred an opportunity cost AND taken on risk. You do realize that's why those bonds are tax free right? Because they wouldn't be a good deal if they were paid the less than "market" rates that they pay AND you had to pay taxes on them. The government wants to entice you to put your money with them and making them tax free is one of the ways they can sweeten' the deal... but you seem to be missing that even with that benefit it still doesn't necessarily mean it was a good deal.
Use of the VPNs is not limited to people in a particular repressed country. A given repressed citizen in country C might be part of the intended audience should they want to use it, but it's not ONLY for them nor is it only for citizens of C. That is, it is not TARGETED. Acts of War are targeted. You don't commit an act of war at no one in particular. Invading a country (even to help the populace get out from under an "evil" dictator) may still be an act of war (probably is) - but running a VPN available to whomever is not.
If you're overly concerned about someone declaring something an "act of war" just because they don't like it then life's just going to be tough. There's always going to be some off his/her rocker leader that will claim that if you do X it is an act of war. And the whole rest of the world will be like, "yeah, yeah. Act of war... bla bla... only in your delusional mind". In that case it doesn't matter if crazy leader thinks of it as an "act of war" or not. It's just not even if they try to apply that label. It's at MOST a fart in their general direction, something disrespectful, but calling it an "act of war" doesn't make it one any more so than calling a comment you simply disagree with a "troll".
If someone rear-ends you, then that's their fault. 100% of the time.
If someone rearends you while driving it may legally be their fault, but that doesn't change the fact that you get to live with whatever injuries you or your family get out of the deal. If you can't stop safely then it is actually in EVERYONE's best interest that you don't stop... unless of course keeping going is even more dangerous for others. Then you have to make a choice. The only way you can know that and to make good choices is to have a circle of awareness that includes what is going on behind you, to your sides, and in front of you. A sphere of awareness is even better, but most of the time, on the road, a circle will suffice.
I rearended someone myself--going 50mph--because I was looking in my rearview mirror too long while doing a lane change, and they were stopped dead on the highway.
You're obviously speaking from a personal experience here, and I hope everyone was okay, but it sounds like you learned the wrong lesson. The lesson you learned should NOT be that you don't need to know what's going on all around you and that you don't need to use your mirrors other than when changing lanes - rather it should be that you shouldn't focus on any ONE area sufficiently long that you fail to notice important things in another area. Who is "legally" at fault only helps you in the courtroom - not in the morgue and not in the operating room... those are where it counts. And yes, you might end up having to defend yourself from a fine (line/red lights) in order to keep yourself out of the morgue.
So, I did some more reading on timezones / DST this weekend. You might want to take a look at http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/DST.html as it seems to state outright that DST is a "bad thing" for farmers. The primary issues that DST addresses actually seem to be related to safety and energy consumption. I'm still interested in agricultural examples if you got 'em, but I'm definitely a bit more skeptical now.
Thanks for the explanation. I'd like to hear more examples if you have them. I generally explain to my kids that the farmers needed more daylight to work, but even at their young ages they follow up with "how does changing the clock make more hours where the sun is shining... it's just different hours". In your response you've provided a "nature" reason for why the hours are different (the cows just come home "later") and a "human" reason (people still want to spend times with their family).
It's not your job to answer my question so if you don't have time that's cool, but since you're obviously knowledgeable about it (and somewhat passionate) I'd be very interested to hear other "nature of farming" issues that cause the "human aspect" to come into play. It's just interesting mostly.
I don't think you're wrong. But I think maybe you misunderstood my position. My intention wasn't to bitch about the choice of the poster to be anonymous. I only get a certain number of modpoints and I choose to mod (both good and bad) non ACs because so many people filter AC out by default.
Not that you have any control over it, but what would neat (perhaps not "useful", but "neat") is if slashdot would let readers obfuscate author names and toggle them visible as desired. Every AC post would get a new obfuscation to keep you from tying them to one another, but every other post would start out (if the reader desired) with obfuscated "by" names. Then you wouldn't know if you were modding an AC or not - or modding one of your mortal virtual enemies. Might remove a little bit of the AC bias. But, otoh, AC bias is there for a reason... and it's because many of them are truly cowards / trolls.
In any case, your point is taken. I don't know if it will affect my behavior, but I'll definitely take it into consideration as this author really did have a good point. And for the record, that's why I responded... to draw attention - to make it a discussion - rather than one ACs random "rant".
If you weren't an AC I'd mod you up.
I wasn't aware that I had a right (and no, I'm not saying I'm atheist) to stick a sign / display of my choosing on the courthouse lawn. I understand that the courthouse might allow me to do so out of tradition, but it's not a RIGHT. Get a grip. I get nauseated every time i see the commercial with the guy who says he has a RIGHT to unlimited data because he has an iPhone or garbage like that. No, you don't have a right to unlimited data and you don't have a right to putting whatever propaganda you choose on the courthouse lawn.
All of that being said I think it's total horseshit that some atheists CHOOSE to fight about this type of thing. The courthouse doesn't BELONG to the atheists and it doesn't BELONG to the other group (choose your religious group). So far as I can tell it's not hurting anyone for the decorations to be out and many people get joy out of it. I doubt the atheist gets anything negative out of it other than what they choose to get... something about needing to feel like everyone's against you in order to give your life purpose / meaning.
I see this behavior as like my 3 year old girl getting pissed off at another 3 year old who is just trying to have a good time while the parents enjoy some coffee. The little girl starts getting pissed because, well, holy shit, that other little 3 year old has the balls to climb on HER slide right in front of her! You know, the one she wasn't using and hasn't used in months, and doesn't even want to use right now.
As a parent I tell my child in no uncertain terms to chill out and that she can play nicely together or go hang out in her room while she gets over it. Why this can't be done for grown ups is beyond me.
If management is under utilizing you as a resource then it's important for them to know that especially in a company that is trying to turn things and around and get better at what they do without spending more money to make it happen. Many employees won't want to just pass that information along and be given more work. Under utilization of existing resources is something that can be reasonably extracted using that particular metric (time spent logged in). I also understand (and so does Mayer I'm sure) that it could also mean a lot of other things, but the easiest way to be sure about it is to remove the other variables. Especially when the other complaints (perhaps jealous outbursts, but perhaps not) existed.
Exactly! The OS of a smart thermostat (5-10 years ago) might be good enough to control a "lowcost space craft". Can this OS context switch? Yes. Can it handle IO to different channels? Yes. Will it stay up and running assuming no one does something stupid and crashes it? Yes! Woo hoo we have a winner for an OS.
The hardware is the key. If the hardware can survive space and operate as expected then you've got something. Even if it doesn't operate as expected, but it does operate consistently you MIGHT be able to work with that. If the hardware works and the OS quits just because it's in space then the OS probably isn't fit for operation anywhere.
... none of which are games.
I guess you're trying to imply that games could not meet the same success? Tell that to minecraft and angry birds to name a couple. Here, and this is just a lame list I found at wikipedia of cloned games and success stories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone#Notable_cloned_games
I realize maybe the GPs use of "clones" was perhaps being used in the derogatory way meaning "uninspired". But the point here isn't that it be new or creative. We know what people want... we also know they don't want. We know that they APPEAR to hate all the strings attached. So if you're so confident then clone the damn game already, do it better, make it fun, and get out of the customers way so it can succeed. With any level of success you won't get sued out of existence, you'll just end up paying a nominal royalty AND show that there's money to be made specifically by not screwing over the customer. That's all I was / am saying.
Right.... because "clones" can't gain traction when they're done better, or less expensively, or more conveniently. Facebook is a MySpace clone . Microsoft Word is essentially a WordPerfect Clone. The list goes on.
There is! You could create a better game / process and take away some market share. That tends to get a company's attention pretty quick. And no, I'm not saying this flippantly.
You're right, but you didn't really say anything;. The whole process is also limited by how fast I can type correctly (a misspelled variable name is a way bigger cost during a compile than anything else) and my application performance (does it run fast enough) is limited by how well I think out and code my algorithms. There's always a potentially slower spot in the process. That doesn't mean we should quit advancing in one particular area (ie. saying CPUs are plenty fast enough already because GPUs can be use - when they demonstrably CAN NOT) and then try to says it's all cool to make a statement such as that just because some other component COULD end up being the bottleneck in some system. A faster CPU is better... unless you're playing an old copy of "xcom ufo defense" on the hardware... then you're screwed.
To answer your question: Yes. Those types of tools would qualify as "real world business applications".
You found a class of exceptions to the rule I was getting at... that's fine. Bitcoins are faster calculated on a video card... so does that mean that CPUs might as well stop advancing.
Higher up the thread they seemed to think computers are plenty fast for everyone because today's games can run on them if only the video card could handle it. But for MANY (dare I say MOST) software developers using the video card to speed things up isn't an option. And even if it was they'd still want a faster compile. Always.
I hear what you're saying, but WilliamGeorge is right. You can't just declare that something is "fast enough" for someone else. They are probably a little more qualified to make that decision than you are.
Maybe I don't need a faster computer to play "Sim City 5" or whatever "games" you talking about. But there's more to life and computing than the latest FPS.
Let me know when I can full system compiles on my video card or run real world business applications on my video card. Until then (and even then), know that I will spend up to an hour each day simply waiting on compiles to complete and unit tests to run. A faster machine is something I look forward to and one would certainly cut down on the amount of time I spend waiting on my computer to be ready for me to get on with my job.
Then again, it would also likely cut down on my slashdotting as I often alt-tab over here while waiting on those other tasks to complete.
Give me a break. How your comment is "informative" other than it offering a link is beyond me.
All this speech did was potentially (if not responded to in the short term with vigor) opened the door for the President of the United States to start telling people to tone down their own lives for the good of the collective. Carter already had terrible approval ratings and SOMEHOW this speech actually helped him in the slightest, but, only for a short time. I'm thankful that some "senile movie actor" was around to remind people of what they already knew.
You're wasting your breath. It's just like patents. The title and tiny summary at the beginning isn't the patent... the claims are the patent. But guess what, a large percent of the people I hear complaining about patents didn't bother reading what is actually claimed. Why would those same people who were complaining about patents read the contents of a law to see what it actually says when they can just stick with being lazy and bitching about the summary of the law instead?
I'm somewhat undecided on bitcoins.
However, I am aware that in the old days (before our time) they used to use "trading beads" to handle "currency exchange". Each currency and denomination was worth a certain number of beads depending on the actual value of the currency in question. So, when someone came to you with a green bead it was worth exactly however much a green bead was worth in the culture you planned to trade it on. The good thing about this is that as a merchant you didn't have to know the exchange rates for everywhere you sold product. Instead you just had to know that you product was worth X number of green beads in YOUR currency - maybe this equates to 5 dollars for 1 green bead. So, when you sold a product you demanded one green bead for it no matter where it was sold. If you were in a culture who had a currency of chickens then it didn't matter to you. You still demanded a green bead and they could figure out for themselves how many chickens makes a green bead. All of that was handled based on the local market - not through some central manipulation. As an added benefit, if the beads were sufficiently difficult to manufacture then you could know that your transaction was secure (and that you weren't getting scammed by the buyer). Seems to me that bitcoin actually does all of these things and might be useful if for no other reason than those.
In bitcoins you actually have the added benefit that you know there is a limit. You don't have to worry about the bead manufacturer putting out an infinite number of beads driving down the value of each.
Now, I guess the questions I would have would be "why did they (people) quit using these types of schemes / beads?" and "what does bitcoin do that is sufficiently different so that those items don't come into play again".